-
Tennessee
Latest documents
- State v. Brittenum, 040220 TNCRIM, W2019-00521-CCA-R3-CD
- Mitchell v. Mitchell, 033120 TNCIV, E2019-00759-COA-R3-CV
- State v. Hathaway, 033120 TNCRIM, M2019-00540-CCA-R3-CO
- Leonard v. Leonard, 033020 TNCIV, W2018-02235-COA-R3-CV
- John-Parker v. Parker, 032720 TNCIV, E2018-01536-COA-R3-CV
- Benanti v. Satterfield, 032720 TNCIV, E2018-01848-COA-R3-CV
- Fuller v. Community National Bank, 032720 TNCIV, E2018-02023-COA-R3-CV
- In re Kayleigh B., 032720 TNCIV, E2019-01153-COA-R3-PT
- Noland v. Cook, 032720 TNCIV, E2019-01170-COA-R3-CV
- Mawn v. Tarquinio, 032720 TNCIV, M2019-00933-COA-R3-CV
Featured documents
- 496 S.W.3d 653 (Tenn. 2016), E2012-01313-SC-DDT-DD, State v. Willis
Defendant was convicted of two counts of premeditated first-degree murder and one count of felony murder in the perpetration of a kidnapping. Defendant was sentenced to death on each conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Defendant’s two convictions of first degree murder. The Supreme...
- 509 S.W.3d 156 (Tenn. 2016), E2013-00394-SC-DDT-DD, State v. Davidson
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape, and facilitation of aggravated rape. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions...
- 291 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn. 2009), E2006-02225-SC-R11-CV, Waters v. Farr
- 362 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. 2012), M2009-00348-SC-R11-CD, State v. Watkins
- 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011), M2007-01918-SC-R11-CD, State v. Dorantes
- 354 S.W.3d 718 (Tenn. 2011), M2008-01216-SC-R11-CD, State v. Davis
- 315 S.W.3d 461 (Tenn. 2010), W2007-01632-SC-R11-PC, Ward v. State
- 350 S.W.3d 883 (Tenn. 2011), E2008-02541-SC-R11-CD, State v. Parker
- 173 S.W.3d 714 (Tenn. 2005), M2003-01320-SC-R11, In re C.K.G.
- 470 S.W.3d 416 (Tenn. 2015), W2013-00503-SC-R11-CD, State v. Knowles
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape of a child. During trial, when the prosecution made election of the facts it was relying upon to establish the charge, the prosecution mistakenly identified the method of sexual penetration. This error was repeated in the jury instruction...